PunkBuster proudly features:
15+ years of experience in the anti-cheat business
Support for all major and many proprietary game engines
Game specific cheat research and detection
Real-time, continuous memory scanning during gameplay
Environment modification detection
Background auto-updates
Cross-platform support (Windows, Linux, Mac)
Administrative tools (screen shots, ban lists, s
http://www.evenbalance.com/
RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.
The fix is securing both sides and a system like Punkbuster or something similar is just one rung on a ladder of everything that needs to be done on both sides to stop this nonsense.
You will never stop cheating with just server side changes. unless you want another lighting patch that will kill Cyrodiil for good this time. The lighting patch butchered Cyrodiil performance the last thing we need is a repeat of that, the servers can't handle that anti cheat now putting anymore on them will render pvp 100% unplayable
RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.
The fix is securing both sides and a system like Punkbuster or something similar is just one rung on a ladder of everything that needs to be done on both sides to stop this nonsense.
You will never stop cheating with just server side changes. unless you want another lighting patch that will kill Cyrodiil for good this time. The lighting patch butchered Cyrodiil performance the last thing we need is a repeat of that, the servers can't handle that anti cheat now putting anymore on them will render pvp 100% unplayable
It's been a while since I read up on this topic, but the last time I did, VAC (Valve Anti-Cheat) was my clear preference.
rfennell_ESO wrote: »RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.
The fix is securing both sides and a system like Punkbuster or something similar is just one rung on a ladder of everything that needs to be done on both sides to stop this nonsense.
You will never stop cheating with just server side changes. unless you want another lighting patch that will kill Cyrodiil for good this time. The lighting patch butchered Cyrodiil performance the last thing we need is a repeat of that, the servers can't handle that anti cheat now putting anymore on them will render pvp 100% unplayable
Eh, steam anti hack and Blizzard's warden don't make the game unplayable.
Or they could simply re-write the client/server code so it doesn't have to trust the client anymore. You know, the thing they should have done in the first place.RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »I suggest none other then Punkbuster
Or they could simply re-write the client/server code so it doesn't have to trust the client anymore. You know, the thing they should have done in the first place.RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »I suggest none other then Punkbuster
GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »If Zos had punkbuster, wouldn't that mean we can go back to a more client side game and have less lag (Since punkbuster can take care of BOT's. ) ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_Anti-Cheat
Valve rarely discusses the software, as it may help cheaters write new code or conduct social engineering.[20]
The software sends client challenges to the machine, if the appropriate response is not received, it is flagged as a possible violation. It uses heuristics to detect possible cheats when scanning the computer's memory and processes, an incident report is created whenever an anomaly is detected, it is then compared to a database of banned applications and/or analyzed by Valve's engineers. The engineers may inspect the code and run it on their own copies of the game. If the code is confirmed as a new cheat, it is added to the database of cheat codes.[23][24]
According to Steam's lead engineer John Cook, to stop the anti-cheat software itself from being exploited, "The software is constantly updated and sent down in small portions for the servers as needed, so hackers only get to see small portions of it running at any particular time. So while they may be able to work around pieces of it, they can never hack everything."[24]
Valve also accepts submissions of cheat programs and cheat websites from players through the official Steam Forums. Players may also report players they suspect of cheating through their Steam Community profile, although players are not banned from these reports alone.[25]
If a cheat is found, the player's Steam account will be flagged as cheating immediately, but the player will not receive any indication of the detection. It is only after a delay of "days or even weeks"[4] that the account is permanently banned from "VAC Secure" servers[25] for that game, possibly along with other games that use the same engine. (e.g. Valve's Source games, GoldSrc games, Unreal engine games). Valve never discloses which cheat was detected. Players have criticised the system for taking weeks to months to ban cheaters.[26]
Large numbers of flagged accounts may also be banned in "waves".
I agree, i doubt ZOS will consider re-writing the netcode. It would neither be quick nor cheap.RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »True but in that case you go with a UDP Netcode of course which would also help the lag, but again thats a huge investment of money that im not sure ZOS is willing to do.
please understand, what you suggest would be what i would prefer, but i doubt they are willing to do that at this stage of ESO life. I'll still hold out hope they will though.
RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »the good thing about Punkbuster is it works on MAC and Linux as well as Windows so you can cover all 3 platforms with one system.
Emma_Eunjung wrote: »NO to this. The last thing ESO needs is some 3rd party software introducing a new failure point to their already buggy game.
Ban cheaters if you must, ZOS, but FIX your game so these exploits aren't possible!
Celas_Dranacea wrote: »Thank you for your post. I personally haven't run into these issues that much but really hate that cheating exists in ESO.
Punk buster seems good. I also think a "physical" presence of some kind of game master would really improve the fairness and sportsmanship of pvp. I just think of my recreational soccer league - we pay fees so we can have a professional referee at each game.
I would love these game masters to be able to get a report about some problem player, then start following that person in game, look at the messages their client is sending, determine if they are cheating. Whatever makes sense - I have no idea how programming works.
However, I'm reflecting on the economical feasibility of this for zos. Imagine we had a GM for each campaign 16 hours a day, 5 out of 7 days a week. Just for the sake of an example here's some math:
2 GM each campaign at $50k a year salary x 4 campaigns = $400,000 not counting workers comp, benefits etc. That's roughly equivalent to $2,222 annual subscriptions ($15x12 months = $180) Pretty steep price!
We should think about this question of how to feasibly implement better oversight in terms of cost as well as impact to the servers and get back to ZOS with our ideas. I leave it to y'all with a better understanding of how this could work.
RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.
RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.
Lol... amusing.. but please next time refrain from giving remarks like this, clearly shows you don't really know what you're saying here. TCP or UDP or SCTP or any other network protocol has nothing to-do with server side validation.
@DocmanduLol... amusing.. but please next time refrain from giving remarks like this, clearly shows you don't really know what you're saying here. TCP or UDP or SCTP or any other network protocol has nothing to-do with server side validation.